Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
India decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Supreme Court held that non-filing of अतिरिक्त copies of a charge-sheet under BNSS s.193(8) does not entitle an accused to default bail if the charge-sheet itself was filed in time.
The Supreme Court set aside High Court directions requiring trial courts to examine the sanctioning authority before framing charge in PC Act cases.
The departmental enquiry's exoneration was not on merits but due to non-examination of a key officer and apparent application of a higher standard of proof; disciplinary and criminal proceedings are independent, and on the facts (including testimony of complainant and independent witnesses and successful trap evidence) criminal proceedings should not be quashed and may continue.
Source excerpt
On the facts and prima facie allegations of manipulation of tenders, immediate approval of payments without verification, purchase irregularities and waiver of bank guarantee, the High Court erred in granting anticipatory bail; given the nature of allegations and need to allow investigation to proceed, anticipatory bail was quashed and the High Court order set aside, while leaving merits open for trial and investigation to be completed.
Source excerpt
The trial was vitiated because the trial court failed to put the specific incriminating evidence to the appellants under Section 313 CrPC, thereby breaching the principle of audi alteram partem and causing serious prejudice; because remanding for re-recording of 313 statements was not feasible after long delay, appellants Nos.1 and 2 were given the benefit of doubt and their convictions and sentences were set aside; appellant No.3 was held to be a juvenile on the date of the offence following the Section 7A inquiry and his conviction and sentence were set aside on that ground.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court held that police statements of an accused under Section 161 Cr.P.C., particularly confessional or admission-type statements, cannot be used to implicate a co-accused at the stage of anticipatory or regular bail; confessional statements to police are inadmissible under Sections 25 and 26 Evidence Act and Section 30 can only operate at trial when its strict conditions are met and the confession is duly proved; the High Court did not err in declining anticipatory bail given the prima facie materials and the need to allow investigation to proceed in a serious corruption probe, a…
Source excerpt
By a majority (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.), the conviction of the appellant under Section 109 IPC read with Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was set aside because the prosecution failed to produce cogent and reliable evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant conspired, colluded with, or intentionally aided the public servant to acquire disproportionate assets; mere name-lending (registration of properties in a spouse's name) without more does not satisfy the ingredients of abetment under Section 107 IPC.
Source excerpt
While affirming the conviction, the Court entertained the appeal limited to sentence and, considering the appellant's age, long delay in trial, and the appellant's offer to deposit an enhanced fine of Rs.5 crores for the benefit of specially-abled/childcare institutions, directed suspension of sentence and release on bail subject to filing an undertaking and deposit of the balance amount by specified date, with the deposited amount to be transmitted to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority and invested in an interest-bearing fixed deposit, interest to be utilised by the Juvenile Justi…
Source excerpt
The second FIR was permissible because it dealt with a larger scheme of widespread corruption and had a distinct scope from the earlier FIR; quashing it would have unjustifiably curtailed investigation into that larger conspiracy, hence the High Court's order quashing the second FIR was set aside and the second FIR restored for continued investigation.
Source excerpt
Where a Settlement Commission has granted immunity (under Section 32K CE Act / Section 127H CA 1962) and the fiscal liability was later found not to exist on remand (with an entitlement to a refund), and where proceedings instituting prosecution post-dated the immunity application, the prosecution could not be sustained; mere registration of FIR did not amount to institution of prosecution and, on the facts, the discharge application should have been allowed and proceedings against the company quashed.
Source excerpt
Explore more
